Japan crisis may chill support for reactors

NUCLEAR POWER

Published 4:00 am, Tuesday, March 15, 2011

Photo: Paul Chinn, The Chronicle

Image 1of/1

Caption

Close

Image 1 of 1

Massive transformers convert 26,000 volts generated by the power plant to 500,000 volts which is sent to the power grid at PG&E's Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant in Avila Beach, Calif. on Friday, May 26, 2006. The plant on the central California coast generates enough power for 1.6 million homes. less

Massive transformers convert 26,000 volts generated by the power plant to 500,000 volts which is sent to the power grid at PG&E's Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant in Avila Beach, Calif. on Friday, May 26, ... more

Photo: Paul Chinn, The Chronicle

Japan crisis may chill support for reactors

1 / 1

Back to Gallery

Ten years ago, Californians appeared to be warming to nuclear power.

A majority of voters favored adding reactors to the state, despite a California law that bans construction of new nuclear plants. Rattled by the state's electricity crisis and worried about global warming, Californians seemed ready to give nuclear energy another chance.

Japan's nuclear crisis may have changed that.

The race to stop three Japanese reactors from melting down after last week's earthquake and tsunami has riveted Americans and could mark another turn in California's on-again, off-again interest in nuclear power.

"This is the wake-up call for California to take action and finally close the door on nuclear plants that sit on fault lines," said Dan Jacobson, legislative director for Environment California. "Mother Nature is stronger than anything we can design."

The state has two commercial nuclear plants - Diablo Canyon and San Onofre - both of them located on California's seismically active coast. Together, they supply about 15 percent of the state's electricity.

The nuclear industry in recent years has been hoping for a nationwide renaissance, driven largely by the fight against climate change. Nuclear plants can generate large amounts of electricity day and night without spewing greenhouse gases, and both the Bush and Obama administrations promised hefty financial incentives to kick-start construction. Federal regulators are reviewing applications for 20 new plants, none in California.

But high construction costs, falling natural gas prices, and the death of federal climate change legislation have undercut the industry. Now events in Japan could chill the much-touted "nuclear spring."

"The nuclear industry was in trouble in the United States long before last week's earthquake and tsunami," said Ellen Vancko, nuclear energy and climate change project manager with the Union of Concerned Scientists, an environmental group.

She pointed to comments made last week by John Rowe, chief executive officer of Exelon Corp., which operates 17 nuclear reactors. Rowe told a gathering at the American Enterprise Institute that new nuclear plants, like solar power plants and wind farms, are not economical without government subsidies.

The first proposed plant to land a loan guarantee from the Obama administration, for example, will cost an estimated $14 billion. The Georgia plant, which would feature two reactors, won a loan guarantee of $8.3 billion last year.

Nuclear advocates hope any public fears raised by the crisis in Japan prove short-lived, both in the United States as a whole and California in particular.

"You can't run the grid that we have now and make the per capita carbon dioxide reductions you want without nuclear power," said former California Assemblyman Chuck DeVore.

While in Sacramento DeVore tried repeatedly, without success, to overturn the state's ban on new nuclear plants. He sees the events in Japan as proof that reactors - even in situations close to a worst-case scenario - pose less of a threat than opponents claim.

"Here we have the largest earthquake in history to strike Japan, with perhaps 10,000 killed by the earthquake and tsunami, and there have been no deaths due to nuclear power," DeVore said.

California law prohibits building more nuclear power plants in the state until the federal government comes up with a permanent solution for storing the waste.

Public support for nuclear power in California has ebbed and flowed over the years.

In recent years, public opinion within the state has been closely divided. In 2001, 59 percent of voters in the Field Poll favored adding nuclear plants in spite of California's ban. By 2010, support had slipped to 48 percent. A smaller number, 44 percent, opposed new nuclear plants in California, while 8 percent held no opinion.

"We were showing about an even split," said Field Poll Director Mark DiCamillo. "Judging from history, I would suspect these numbers are going to change the next time we measure this."

Despite the moratorium, a group of investors has spent several years trying to build two reactors near Fresno. They would be used for desalinating water, rather than selling power, said John Hutson, president of the Fresno Nuclear Energy Group. Since the project would not be a commercial power plant, Hutson believes the moratorium wouldn't apply.

Latest from the SFGATE homepage:

Click below for the top news from around the Bay Area and beyond. Sign up for our newsletters to be the first to learn about breaking news and more. Go to 'Sign In' and 'Manage Profile' at the top of the page.